Here's another angle on a story previously covered by NB's Tim Graham.
Friday's New York Times editorial (requires registration) makes it clear, without having the courage to specifically say it, that it opposed the impending execution of the Iraqi dictator, even characterizing the three-year legal process as "The Rush to Hang" him.
The Times may have taken it too far this time. I would think more than a few in the Manhattan wine-and-cheese set, even those who oppose the war, will be astute enough to substitute the name "Osama bin Laden" and his "orchestration of the 9/11 attacks" for "Saddam Hussein" and his "vile and unforgivable atrocities" in the Times' Friday editorial. Here are a couple of easy examples:
Editorial: The important question was never really about whether Saddam Hussein was guilty of crimes against humanity.
Substitute: The important question was never really about whether Osama Bin Laden was guilty of orchestrating the 9/11 attacks.
Editorial: What really mattered was whether an Iraq freed from his death grip could hold him accountable in a way that nurtured hope for a better future.
Substitute: What really mattered was whether America could hold bin Laden accountable in a way that nurtured hope for a better future.
Many of the Times' most loyal readers had family members or personally knew people who died in the Twin Towers. Can they, or can anyone else, really doubt that the Times will oppose bin Laden's execution, should that blessed day ever come, with "creative" excuses like the ones it concocted for Hussein?
Is such a newspaper run by people who are so clearly out of touch really worth anyone's time, attention, and money, especially when there are two perfectly acceptable alternatives in Gotham, and so many credible alternative resources online?
Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.
—Tom Blumer is president of a training and development company in Mason, Ohio, and is a contributing editor to NewsBusters
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Mr. Blumer...To put it real s
December 30, 2006 - 13:59 ET by bigtimerMr. Blumer...
To put it real simple the answer to your question is .....NO!
The Old Grey Lady is washing up as far as money and readers go....give 'er time....heheheee....
...and by the way to all...It's a beautiful morning! One less evil dictator, thanks to our fine leader here, and our brave and fine military! Thank you all!
Thank you Mr. Blumer for all the excellent hard work, information, and joy you have brought me over time and a very Happy New Year to you and yours!
"If we ever forget that we are a Nation Under God....then we will be a Nation Gone Under." Ronald Reagan
thx
December 30, 2006 - 16:36 ET by Tom BlumerWow. Appreciate the kind words. You and yours have a great new year too.
I would agree with you if the
December 30, 2006 - 19:57 ET by Andrew H.I would agree with you if their customers were thinking adults. But alas, they're liberal--the place where confusion reigns and where the Jone's buy the Times. Most have to keep up, you know.
Liberalism is a convenient lie.
AOH, some people are capable
December 30, 2006 - 21:21 ET by MikeBAOH, some people are capable of holding diametrically opposed views simultaneously, without noticing that they do so. And, as long as al-NYT continues its hate-mongering against all things Republican and/or conservative, the NYC libs won't bother to cancel their subscriptions.
"A communist is someone who reads Marx. An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx." Ronald Reagan
Mr. Blumer,I'm having troub
December 30, 2006 - 18:31 ET by TelemarkTumaloMr. Blumer,
I'm having trouble understanding your posting here. I can understand your criticism of The NY Times, but I don't understand the relevance of your substitution of Osama Bin Laden's name in place of Hussein's. These are two different men, one the former "elected" leader of his country, the other a known Saudi Arabian terrorist hiding within the borders of Afghanistan. One perpetrated a string of deadly attacks on the
United States and its allies: the 1993 World Trade Center bombing; the 1998 bombings of US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania that killed more than 200; and the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole in Yemen. Bin Laden also claims responsibility for a 1993 gunfight that killed 18 U.S. troops in Somalia and the 1996 bombing of the Khobar military complex in Saudi Arabia that left 19 U.S. soldiers dead. On the other hand, Hussein perpetrated wars against Iran in 1980 and Kuwait in 1990, and against his own people over the course of his tenure as the leader of Iraq. Why link these two men at all? That is akin to substituting Joseph Stalin for Franklin Roosevelt because they were both enemies of Hitler. If you don't like the NY Times, or any other news forum for that matter, then vote with your feet and don't buy or read it. Their advertisers will get the message.
Me
December 30, 2006 - 19:24 ET by Tom BlumerI'm having trouble understanding your posting here.
Boy, you sure are.
That is akin to substituting Joseph Stalin for Franklin Roosevelt because they were both enemies of Hitler.
I'm a pretty patient guy with commenters, but TT, that is the absolutely least informed comment I have received since I've been blogging, posting, and commenting on forums (roughly 10 years).
Let's keep it simple:
- NYT believes that Saddam shouldn't have been put to death, even though his casualty list is in the millions.
- If that and a trial won't sway the Times to support Saddam's execution, it seems pretty clear that the NYT will oppose a death sentence for OBL, despite the laundry list of horrors you mention.
- People who live in NYC know friends and loved ones who died in the towers, and all but a few will expect justice in the form of the death penalty if OBL is ever captured.
- These same people, if they put 2+2 together, should realize that "their" paper will oppose appropriate justice for those same friends and loved ones.
- The substitutions of phrases relevant to OBL for those the Times used relating to Saddam (and others I didn't bother with) are ones I would expect anyone who cares about exacting justice for those who perished to mentally do.
- Upon realizing that, especially since it hits home because it's about their departed friends and loved ones, they will either take the Times less seriously from now on, or, if they are outraged enough, will drop it. If it's the former, advertisers will get less reader attention along with the content. If the latter, the Times' revenue drops immediately from subscribers, and fairly quickly from advertisers.
And so the decline of the Times will continue. Their editorial yesterday will contribute to that decline. The only question is that of degree.
I cannot comprehend how you cannot see that, or how I could be any more clear.
Telemark: You are seriously
December 30, 2006 - 19:48 ET by kathleenirishTelemark:
You are seriously identifying Saddam Hussein as "an elected leader"?
No, he wasn't. He is as much of a terrorist as Osama bin Laden, in so many more ways when you consider the history of the man and his terrorist-supporting 'government'. You are deluded, like all nihilistic liberals.
The democratically-elected government of Iraq executed a mass-murdering terrorist. Good. The NYT is a failing, sputtering, empty piece of rotting debris.
Nothing good every comes out of its pathetic, antiAmerican, wimpy mouth. This is just another example of its demise.
"He who has a thousand friends has not a friend to spare, and he who has one enemy will meet him everywhere" -Ali ibn-Abi-Talib, 4th Islamic Caliph
Hey, if Saddam was democratic
December 31, 2006 - 15:03 ET by UnsaneHey, if Saddam was democratically elected, then maybe we should pull out of South Korea immediately. After all, back in 1962, North Korea reported a 100% voter turnout and a 100% vote for candidates of the Korean Workers Party, to include Kim Il-Sung himself. (ALL of their own freewill, of course.)
They don't call it the Democratic People's Republic of Korea for nothing.
"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy." -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)
Thanks for your clarificati
December 30, 2006 - 20:55 ET by TelemarkTumaloThanks for your clarification, but your argument is specious in that you presume to know the stance of the The NY Time editorial board should 1) bin Laden be caught, 2) be convicted by an International Court, 3) sentenced to death by the same court, 4) the NYT editorial board protest a death sentence of bin Laden. Numbers 2 and 3 are unlikely and the circumstances are far different in that Hussein was caught by US troops, turned over to the Iraqi authorities, tried and sentenced by an Iraqi justice system. Afghanistan doesn't seem interested in pursuing bin Laden and it is unlikely that unless he gave a confession, that Osama would be brought to justice in any court of law. More than likely, when he is caught, he will be killed by his captors and turned over for bounty if other than by military troops.
Your opinion of the NY Times editorial board is quite clear. I would encourage you to no longer read this for the sake of your stress level. However, I would also encourage you to try a course at your local community college in debate, philosophy or logic. Our President and his staff made repeated mistakes in trying to tie Hussein to the events of 9/11 in order to justify an Iraqi invasion. Only the gullible and misinformed continue to believe that such a relationship exists.
OH
December 30, 2006 - 21:20 ET by Tom BlumerOh, you are a piece of work, TT.
If NYT won't oppose Saddam's death, under what impossibly narrow conditions would it be OK with OBL's?
Your condescension is hysterical. I made NO, ZERO, NADA attempt to tie Saddam to 9/11, and only someone deliberately trying to misread what I wrote would try to make that claim. I was comparing conditions for applying the death penalty only. If you're as smart as you pretend to be, you would know that.
Oh, and BTW, the Times opposed the execution of Timothy McVeigh, which I already knew but confirmed after a library database search. In summary, the Times, on June 4, 1997, said:
Until their editorial about Saddam, one might have hoped that the Times, having been mugged by reality along with the rest of NYC on 9/11, might change its no-exceptions posture on the death penalty to at least include the worst of mass murderers. Barring a change in who is on the editorial board, which in the Times' case would almost have to include a change in management AND ownership, Friday's editorial quashed that hope once and for all. There's a pretty good chance that even archliberals diametrically opposed to the war in Iraq would be deeply offended by the Times' position, given the obvious implication on where it would come down on the death penalty for OBL, especially if they lost someone they cared about on 9/11.
What can you possibly not understand about all of this?
"...we see capital punis
December 30, 2006 - 21:40 ET by MikeB"...we see capital punishment, ... as morally wrong and against the Constitutions ban on cruel and unusual punishments."
Obviously, the editorial board of al-NYT needs to read the Constitution. The fifth amendment holds in part, "nor shall any person be ... twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; ... nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..."
Obviously, capital punishment was not considered "cruel or unusual" when the Constitution was written, as during trial for a capital offense, the defendant's life was put in jeopardy (for those of you in Manhattan, that means the defendant could lose his life), but double jeopardy was prohibited. Also, if due process of law were followed, a defendant could lose life, liberty, or property.
At the time the Constitution was written, the Cruel and unusual punishment clause meant only that the punishment should be comensurate with the crime. You could not hang someone for stealing a loaf of bread, for example. From the nature of appeals in recent decades, it seems to me the liberals are attempting to make any punishment to be unusual. We can't execute a murderer, no matter how heinous, but should sentence them to "life in prison without the possibility of parole." But, wait! Prisons are terrible places. It is a cruel punishment to sentence someone to such a hell-hole. Hey, Pinch, why don't you just advocate not prosecuting anyone for any crime whatsoever?
"A communist is someone who reads Marx. An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx." Ronald Reagan
Oh, you are a piece of work
December 30, 2006 - 22:35 ET by DontFeedTheTrollsOh, you are a piece of work, TT.
'A piece of work'? 'Work'?? No, a piece of '****' would be more apt. Methinks we have a new moonbat, here to enlighten us all.
DSG
DSG,Yeah, I kinda saw it comi
December 30, 2006 - 22:52 ET by Indiana JoeDSG,
Yeah, I kinda saw it coming from TT's first post. I think he just wanted to work the "Bush lied, people died" TP into this somewhere. As tired and stale as that one is...
My reply to him below will be my only attempt at violating the rules of your SN with "Telemarket Troll."
Easy come, easy go... ;^)
IJ
"Our President and his s
December 30, 2006 - 21:34 ET by Indiana Joe"Our President and his staff made repeated mistakes in trying to tie Hussein to the events of 9/11 in order to justify an Iraqi invasion."
WRONG!!! Never happened. All the administration EVER said concerning ANY ties between OBL and Saddam Hussein was that members of Al-Quida MET with Iraqi security forces, and were supported and aided in VARIOUS ways, NONE of which were ever implied to have ANYTHING to do with the 9/11 attacks. Except by people like you who like to PRETEND that is what was said.
And those charges were proven to be true. They were ALLIES, cohorts, partners in crime in the spread of terrorism. And "only the gullible and misinformed continue to believe that such a relationship" DIDN'T exist.
Get your facts straight before you come here insulting others' education and intelligence, or making your snap judgements about their "stress level."
On OBL Take 8, 521, 367
December 31, 2006 - 02:48 ET by UnsaneI know this will sound redundant, but as long as these Leftists keep bringing it up...
My first point is a simple one. We aren't looking for OBL? I'll be sure to tell some friends of mine currently deployed to Bagram, Kandahar, and Bishkek this. They sure would be surprised to hear this.
Second point: what specifically will finding OBL SOLVE beyond bloodlust? You DO realize that someone else who hates America as much as he does WILL take his place, correct? No, you don't. You want OBL caught so that you and your Leftist fellow travelers can loudly declare "WORLD PEACE! Rose gardens are spontaneously bloming EVERYWHERE! I guess we don't need a military now! Let's build the biggest, nicest Nanny State the world has ever known!!!"
Third point: Where were all you Leftists in the 1980s when Abu Nidal was out and about? Were you guys all demanding we stop the Cold War, withdraw from Europe, and invade the Middle East to find Abu Nidal? (Nah. But you WERE demanding we unilaterally withdraw from Europe to show the Soviets just how super-nice we were in the United States.)
"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy." -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)
"Our President and his
December 31, 2006 - 17:57 ET by ckc1227"Our President and his staff made repeated mistakes in trying to tie Hussein to the events of 9/11 in order to justify an Iraqi invasion. Only the gullible and misinformed continue to believe that such a relationship exists."
And only the deluded and disingenuous continue to suggest that such a relationship was ever put forward as justification for the Iraqi operation.
Speaking of Rushing
December 30, 2006 - 22:09 ET by GregELet me try and understand the liberal mind.
Three years, but we RUSHED to hang Saddam? 15 years & 17 U.N. resolutions, but we RUSHED to war?
Iraq is a tough situation, but of utmost importance. But no, let's not do what it takes to win. Instead, it's perfectly fine to RUSH.......to our defeat?
This is insane. Saddam and
December 30, 2006 - 23:58 ET by Rupert CadellThis is insane. Saddam and Osama are, believe it or not, different people. One has nothing to do with the other. I don't think any of these so-called liberal rags are upset that Saddam has been hanged, they are simply in tune with the fact that his execution MEANS NOTHING in the realistic, pragmatic sense.
It is so entertaining how willing you are to conflate apples and oranges. They're different despots with different stories. I know they're both dark-skinned Ay-Rabs, but give me a break.
zheesh
December 31, 2006 - 00:11 ET by Tom BlumerIf you've read my comments, your comment means that you're not even trying to get it.
Any time those two are mentioned in the same breath, paragraph, or post, regardless of the context or the argument, the racist rightie must be trying to "tie them together." Soooooooo predictable.
Yawwwwwwwn.
Tom
December 31, 2006 - 06:13 ET by SportPoliticsUnfortunately Tom, it is clear to me that the very same would effusively support the execution of President Bush. They would swarm the gallows in droves excitedly agreeing that they very well could make the required exception, in order to save the world and regain the dignity and pride and respect and light the world formerly held America up to.
Yeah, they would do it, it's an all encompassing fantasy for them. The cure for their incessant BDS we have had to put up with for far too long now.
BTW - It's really too bad they were all so full of crap and ditched Murtha and benighted Steny Hoyer, since now they're even bigger lying macacasses than I ever hoped to give them credit for being. Skumbag, lowlife, lying, filthy schiesters. In the doghouse.
Gee I'm almost 60 and starting with the French pulling out of...
December 31, 2006 - 18:10 ET by acaiguanaGee I'm almost 60 and starting with the French pulling out of NATO through current times, where was this concept?
"...regain the dignity and pride and respect and light the world formerly held America up to..."
I can only remember the doom and gloom of "The Ugly American" through the "Ugly President Bush".
I probably was goofing off in a rice paddy somewhere again.
Shucks.
Could it be like the "Good Old Days", a fantasy in the feeble Liberal Brain?
ACA
...
Acaiguana says: "Which city is next?"
Bad year to be a totalitarian dictator.
December 31, 2006 - 09:26 ET by blackrain4xmasSaddam
Pinochet
Milosivic
Come on Fidel! There's still a few hours left in 06!!!!!!!!
Tom, Welcome to the World of 'hands over ears...NA NA LA LA' lan
December 31, 2006 - 13:26 ET by acaiguanaTom, Welcome to the World of 'hands over ears...NA NA LA LA' land.
After the first line mentioning trouble over understanding the post, the reset of the alphabet into words following by Mr. Truth was pretty much not worth the effort to read.
The mindset of the NYT Editorial Board is not impossible to describe. Their stand has been published over and over and over.
To lable an argument as 'specious' based on the vague idea that one cannot understand the NYT Editorial Board mindset is ...
well...
specious.
ACA
...
Acaiguana says: "Which city is next?"